Institutions, Automation, and Legitimate Expectations

IF 0.9 Q3 ETHICS Journal of Ethics Pub Date : 2023-09-12 DOI:10.1007/s10892-023-09440-x
Jelena Belic
{"title":"Institutions, Automation, and Legitimate Expectations","authors":"Jelena Belic","doi":"10.1007/s10892-023-09440-x","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract Debates concerning digital automation are mostly focused on the question of the availability of jobs in the short and long term. To counteract the possible negative effects of automation, it is often suggested that those at risk of technological unemployment should have access to retraining and reskilling opportunities. What is often missing in these debates are implications that all of this may have for individual autonomy understood as the ability to make and develop long-term plans. In this paper, I argue that if digital automation becomes rapid, it will significantly undermine the legitimate expectation of stability and consequently, the ability to make and pursue long-term plans in the sphere of work. I focus on what is often taken to be one of the main long-term plans, i.e. the choice of profession, and I argue that this choice may be undermined by the pressure to continuously acquire new skills while at the same time facing a diminishing range of professions that one can choose from. Given that the choice of profession is significant for not-work related spheres of life, its undermining can greatly affect individual autonomy in these other spheres too. I argue that such undermining of individual planning agency constitutes a distinctive form of harm that necessitates a proactive institutional response.","PeriodicalId":35843,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Ethics","volume":"29 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1007/s10892-023-09440-x","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Abstract Debates concerning digital automation are mostly focused on the question of the availability of jobs in the short and long term. To counteract the possible negative effects of automation, it is often suggested that those at risk of technological unemployment should have access to retraining and reskilling opportunities. What is often missing in these debates are implications that all of this may have for individual autonomy understood as the ability to make and develop long-term plans. In this paper, I argue that if digital automation becomes rapid, it will significantly undermine the legitimate expectation of stability and consequently, the ability to make and pursue long-term plans in the sphere of work. I focus on what is often taken to be one of the main long-term plans, i.e. the choice of profession, and I argue that this choice may be undermined by the pressure to continuously acquire new skills while at the same time facing a diminishing range of professions that one can choose from. Given that the choice of profession is significant for not-work related spheres of life, its undermining can greatly affect individual autonomy in these other spheres too. I argue that such undermining of individual planning agency constitutes a distinctive form of harm that necessitates a proactive institutional response.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
制度、自动化和合理的期望
关于数字自动化的争论主要集中在短期和长期工作的可用性问题上。为了抵消自动化可能产生的负面影响,人们经常建议,那些面临技术性失业风险的人应该有机会接受再培训和再培训。在这些争论中经常忽略的是,所有这些都可能对个人自主权产生影响,而个人自主权被理解为制定和发展长期计划的能力。在本文中,我认为如果数字自动化变得迅速,它将极大地破坏对稳定性的合理期望,从而破坏在工作领域制定和追求长期计划的能力。我关注的是通常被认为是主要的长期计划之一,即职业选择,我认为这种选择可能会被不断获得新技能的压力所破坏,同时面临着一个人可以选择的职业范围越来越小。考虑到职业的选择对于与工作无关的生活领域很重要,它的破坏也会极大地影响个人在其他领域的自主权。我认为,这种对个别规划机构的破坏构成了一种独特的伤害形式,需要积极主动的机构反应。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Ethics
Journal of Ethics Arts and Humanities-Philosophy
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
21
期刊介绍: The Journal of Ethics: An International Philosophical Review seeks to publish articles on a wide range of topics in ethics, philosophically construed, including such areas as ethical theory, social, political, and legal philosophy, applied ethics, meta-ethics, the metaphysics of morality, and the history of ethics. The Journal of Ethics publishes work from a wide variety of styles including but not limited to the analytic tradition and hermeneutics. The Journal of Ethics is also interested in ethical thinking that is enriched by psychology, sociology and other empirical disciplines. The Journal of Ethics is primarily an organ of philosophical research, although it publishes work on topics of concern to academics and professionals alike. The journal also seeks to publish the highest quality commentaries on works published in its pages. Its double-blind review process must ensure analytical acuity as well as depth and range of philosophical scholarship. At the moment, the journal does not publish book reviews.
期刊最新文献
Self-Inflicted Frankfurt-Style Cases and Flickers of Freedom Kant on the Normativity of Obligatory Ends Employers have a Duty of Beneficence to Design for Meaningful Work: A General Argument and Logistics Warehouses as a Case Study Moral Perception as Imaginative Apprehension 50 Years of Dirty Hands: An Overview
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1